Bush got his one big issue (crafting a strategy to fight against jihadists) right. Other than that he was mediocre, yet I miss the guy more every passing day.

An aside: the same blithering ninnies who chastise Rand Paul for his views on the Civil Rights Act for "not understanding how the world really works" are also the first ones to demand that we play nice with non-citizen enemy combatants like KSM who we have in custody. And yes, I have one insane British erstwhile conservative blogger in mind. Seeing that Bush is right on KSM takes a constant struggle.

HDHouse said...I must have missed the part where the former president of the United States admitted that he knowingly broke a law. Is that in a footnote?

As to the rest, which lives did he save by the way? Do we have any names here or just the idiot boy justifying Dick's decisions====================Henhouse typifies the liberal attitude most Americans find so dangerous.

1. That war or hostility is impossible as long as everyone obeys the same "Rule of Law" and when they don't - we can defeat them in a law enforcement exercise honoring "Rule of Law" and considering each enemy an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - "suspect".

2. That it is preferable to lose American lives over "questioning an alleged suspect in a way that makes him uncomfortable or deprives the suspect of lawyer and Miranda."

HDHouse said...I must have missed the part where the former president of the United States admitted that he knowingly broke a law. Is that in a footnote?

As to the rest, which lives did he save by the way? Do we have any names here or just the idiot boy justifying Dick's decisions====================Henhouse typifies the liberal attitude most Americans find so dangerous.

1. That war or hostility is impossible as long as everyone obeys the same "Rule of Law" and when they don't - we can defeat them in a law enforcement exercise honoring "Rule of Law" and considering each enemy an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - "suspect".

2. That it is preferable to lose American lives over "questioning an alleged suspect in a way that makes him uncomfortable or deprives the suspect of lawyer and Miranda."

What is there to say? Bush is as much a disgrace to his former office as ever, as much a war criminal and liar. He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole host of those who ran their criminal enterprise of torture, illegal wiretapping, and mass murder for eight years should spend the remainder of their despicable lives in prison.

But then, if we start to prosecute the Bush gang for their crimes, where do we stop? We would have to extend the investigations and resulting prosecutions into the present and several previous administrations, as well as into Congress.

It'll never happen, as America the Lawless Nation careens off the rails into collapse and ignominy.

Questions asked, answers given, direct and honest. Notice how that works. You actually know what he thinks afterward and you don't wonder what the hell that was all about and if it's gonna be on the test.

He wasn't very conservative, he tended to meddle to much and took some pretty bad advice. He also just wasn't very good at playing the Washington game. He often did not seem to realize just how ill-intentioned his opponents were.

On the other hand, he did understand the enemy - I think that part of if was his deep faith in god. I am convinced that irreligious and nonreligious types (including Obama, attendance at Rev Wright's Church of Hatin' on Whitey and the Jews notwithstanding) just don't get religious fanatics - they need to see everything through the lens of a Franz Fanon, Che Guvera or Saul Alinsky. They just don't grok the jihad or the crusade. It takes a religious person to see how religion can truly go off the rails into a jihad or a crusade (yes, the crusades were essentially a counterattack or response, but the WAY in which most of them were fought made them not much better than the jihad they were resisting), yet still inspire a genuine, if twisted faith.

Cookie is like Freder in that they hold very sincere beliefs that torture, even to save one or many innocent lives is never permissible. That in and of itself is a fine and noble position to take. I just dont' want them making national security decisions on my behalf.

§ 2340. DefinitionsHow Current is This? As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

I'm sure you will fall back on the "waterboarding is/was not intended to inflict severe pain and suffering" argument. However, what we want it to be and what it is are two different things as you well know. Pulling out fingernails or drilling screws into kneecaps can be classified as non-severe because they are not life threatening. by the logic, putting Jews in vats of ice water overnight wasn't torture because the Nazis wanted to test them the next day so they must have known they would survive.

See how your logic works? In that twisted little mind of yours I'm pretty sure you could even rationalize just about anything for your own convenience.

The protestations in this remind me of a guy I used to work with - he had a theory that if you were against abortion, you should be completely pro-life. No death penalty, war, etc. If you were pro-choice, then you couldn't object to the death penalty, etc.

Waterboarding 3 acknowledged terrorists seems to be have crossed some kind of bright line that extra judicial executions (sorry - drone attacks), not closing Guantanamo, not pulling out of Iraq by promised deadlines haven't crossed.

I'm generally amazed that you can either support war and covert operations but are repulsed by 3 guys getting waterboarded.

Henhouse typifies the liberal attitude most Americans find so dangerous.

1. That war or hostility is impossible as long as everyone obeys the same "Rule of Law" and when they don't - we can defeat them in a law enforcement exercise honoring "Rule of Law" and considering each enemy an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - "suspect".

2. That it is preferable to lose American lives over "questioning an alleged suspect in a way that makes him uncomfortable or deprives the suspect of lawyer and Miranda."

3. When is HIS life, HIS family, HIS city at risk from a WMD attack, the Libtard will be begging people like Bush to use any and all means to stop it.

"I'm generally amazed that you can either support war and covert operations but are repulsed by 3 guys getting waterboarded."

Who says I support war or covert operations? Aside from arguably WWII, there's no war we've fought that was necessary or justified, and even in WWII, we did not justify torture as legitimate behavior "to save our lives" or for any reason, (although unsanctioned atrocities were probably committed, as we know they were in Viet Nam.)

And we're talking about more than the three persons we've admitted to having waterboarded, although it's likely many more than that, (and we've employed torture techniques beyond mere waterboarding), we're also talking about persons we have beaten to death, as well as all the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq we have murdered and the millions we have made into homeless refugees.

I'm a pretty nice guy, even to idiot lefties. But if you come up and kick me in the balls rest assured you will receive a beat down far and away from the simple sack tapping you gave me. Sure I won't kill ya, but you may wish I did. What you call overkill is what I call making sure you are 1) inacapable of ever doing me harm again or 2) making sure you never want to suffer such a beating again.

You may wish to sympathize with Islamic terrorists who wish to kill me and that's fine. I want to seem them all as worm food and the sooner the better.

Robert Cook is a committed pacifist who’s consistency and integrity demands at the least a respectful hearing before we dismiss it out of hand. We need the Robert Cooks of the world to bring a different point of view to our attention. He might never change our minds but he can give us food for thought.

Aside from arguably WWII, there's no war we've fought that was necessary or justified.

I can agree with you about the Mexican War, Spanish-American War, and WWI. But the War of 1812 was thrust upon us, and you can count me among the people who feel that ending slavery justified the Civil War.

Go back and find the audio clip of the man on one of top floors of WTC 1 calling 911. As the woman is trying to comfort him, he screams - oh god, oh god - as the tower collapses underneath and on top of him.

If I had the responsibility to waterboard the man responsible for that atrocity in order to glean information that might prevent another round of attacks, I would not hesitate to do so.

BigMike: I don't think the American Civil War was necessary in order to end slavery (which was already stumbling toward its last legs), but it was necessary to keep the Union whole. And at the same time, popularly held forth as illegal by many people. In other words, it resembles the Iraq War in a few ways.

He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole host of those who ran their criminal enterprise of torture, illegal wiretapping, and mass murder for eight years should spend the remainder of their despicable lives in prison.

And yet none of them will. They'll spend the rest of their lives admired as heroes by many of us.